leroy wrote:but why in a limited sense? why are humans more important than animals, plants or bacteria?

Yes, I believe that humans are more important to me than animals, plants or bacteria.

I can think of several factors that I believe has influenced that stance;

1. Bias. I am a member of the human race, so I cannot escape a certain bias. Placing importance in your own race (humankind) is a survival mechanism.

2. Human characteristics. Human's intelligence, our tool use, our nuanced sense of feelings and desires and, not least, our well-developed language (allowing us have complex communication with each other about the aforementioned characteristics) sets us apart from all other animals. The fact that we can use an electronic device to communicate use a huge network is an indication of how we are different.Our ability to use acquired knowledge to strategize and plan about issues or problems that we have never encountered before also sets us apart. Our ability to communicate (both verbally and in writing) helps immensely in that. We can learn from almost anybody irrespective of place and time.All of the above allows humans to have a greater impact, good or bad, on the world than other animals - making us more important.

3. Societal rules. We have moved beyond pure instincts, putting us in a different position than other animals. Some social animals seems to have some sort of social conventions, but nothing as complicated as we have. For instance we have developed a system of law that tries to have punishments fitting the crime and engendering a sense of justice in the group/tribe/country.We don't simply have the strongest or the entire tribe punish a trespasser of the societal rules by beating them or killing them. We attempt to dispassionately and objectively determine guilt (if any) and allow the accused to defend themselves and argue their case.This makes us special (and more important) compared to other animals and forms of life.

should we kill 10 wolves just to save a single human being? .............if yes..............why?

Yes. See above.

and what if this single human is an old man, that consumes more products and services than what he produces?.............(his net contribution to society is negative).........would you change your answer?

No, I would not. I do not reduce the "value" (however you want to measure it) of a human being to a societal cost/benefit analysis. The thought of such a way of thinking or a society based on such principles is rather terrifying.

my point is why are you putting humans in a special category, as if humans where different from other animals in a meaningful way?

Because I believe that humans (while animals) ARE different from other animals in a meaningful way.

the question was originally for Laurens, but others are free to answer,

Why did you quote me then? Did you pose the same question to Laurens earlier?

Right, your ideas about sexually demand we should pretend men are women and visa versa.

I'm not advocating pretending anything. All it is is respecting what someone wants to identify as. Someone wants to be identified as a man, I refer to them as 'he' I'm not forcing myself to believe or pretend anything, I'm just accepting what they want to call themselves.

Laurens wrote:I'm not advocating pretending anything. All it is is respecting what someone wants to identify as. Someone wants to be identified as a man, I refer to them as 'he' I'm not forcing myself to believe or pretend anything, I'm just accepting what they want to call themselves.

So you don't believe that someone like Bruce Jenner is really a women?

“..the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him.” Tolstoy

Laurens wrote:I'm not advocating pretending anything. All it is is respecting what someone wants to identify as. Someone wants to be identified as a man, I refer to them as 'he' I'm not forcing myself to believe or pretend anything, I'm just accepting what they want to call themselves.

So you don't believe that someone like Bruce Jenner is really a women?

I believe that Caitlin Jenner was born biologically as a male. I'm not going to deny that fact of history. However I respect her wishes to now identify as female.

Gnug215 wrote:Oh... also, I just noticed that this is not the "Sex change is an unholy abomination" thread, but "Worldwide celebration of Christ's resurrection.

Does it say anywhere in the Bible that Jesus resurrected as a man? I mean as a timelord he could have come back as a woman.

Personally I just use the long weekend as a good chance to go to the summer house and start spring works (weather permitting). Though I can't see why christians would celebrate the testament of their Gods failing anyway.

Laurens wrote:I'm not advocating pretending anything. All it is is respecting what someone wants to identify as. Someone wants to be identified as a man, I refer to them as 'he' I'm not forcing myself to believe or pretend anything, I'm just accepting what they want to call themselves.

So you don't believe that someone like Bruce Jenner is really a women?

Why does it have to be that simplistic? Surely a person is more than their distribution of chromosomes? Or the shape of their genitals. There really seems to be two, non-identical meanings of the terms gender. There is the physiological bodily definition of gender, and then there is the mental experiential definition of gender. Why must one have priority over the other?

Why can't it be "really" the case that Bruce Jenner is the mind of a woman in the body of a man? A female personality with a man's body and genes? Is there something physically or logically impossible about this? Is it not possible that the brain that is part of that body, has the physiological qualities that makes it act and think feel as if it was female? And if that is possible, why is it some sort of issue to say that the person in question is a woman? Why would we give chromosmal and/or genitial qualities primacy in describing this persons identity, over their own experiences?

When we say Bruce Jenner is a woman, we're not saying "Bruce Jenner has no Y-chromosome and no penis". We're merely accepting this persons desire to be described by their experiences, rather than the shapes of their chromosomes and reproductive organs.

Rumraket wrote:Why does it have to be that simplistic? Surely a person is more than their distribution of chromosomes? Or the shape of their genitals. There really seems to be two, non-identical meanings of the terms gender. There is the physiological bodily definition of gender, and then there is the mental experiential definition of gender. Why must one have priority over the other?

Why can't it be "really" the case that Bruce Jenner is the mind of a woman in the body of a man? A female personality with a man's body and genes? Is there something physically or logically impossible about this? Is it not possible that the brain that is part of that body, has the physiological qualities that makes it act and think feel as if it was female? And if that is possible, why is it some sort of issue to say that the person in question is a woman? Why would we give chromosmal and/or genitial qualities primacy in describing this persons identity, over their own experiences?

When we say Bruce Jenner is a woman, we're not saying "Bruce Jenner has no Y-chromosome and no penis". We're merely accepting this persons desire to be described by their experiences, rather than the shapes of their chromosomes and reproductive organs.

Well, I for one have some ideas as to why it has to be simplistic.

Simplicity in thought usually comes from a mind that is incapable of complex thought.

Beyond that, I think thenexttodie, like so many other Christians - Christian men in particular - has a REALLY, really hard time relating to sex and in particular homosexuality and transsexuality; sexuality that blurs the lines for them. I mean, I remember when I was a Christian AND a teenager at the same time. Homosexuality was just... so fear-inducing somehow. I can't even remember why. Not sure if I ever found the cause. I think some of it was a fear of being homosexual myself, which was of course stupid, because why wouldn't I know what sexual orientation I had? At no point was I attracted to men, and women were all the rage. This was clear to me fairly early in the process, but perhaps it's not clear to someone who might actually be homosexual but in denial? Who knows.

Eventually, having wondered about these things, I personally came to the conclusion that it probably has something to do with men normally being the... "active" ones in sexual pursuits. Women are usually perceieved (and expected?) to be passive, while men do all the hunting. So maybe the thought of being actively hunted/pursued by an active, even aggressive sexual partner is scary? Especially if said person doesn't turn you on, or even disgusts you? I know many guys have problems with "active" women as well.

So yeah, it could be some classic macho stuff. It was compounded by Christianity and that feeling of guilt that gives you for being a sexual being. Good stuff.

Eventually, I stopped being an insecure teenager and grew up. I also stopped being a Christian, so these things don't scare me anymore.